Formally,
6:62 resembles the response of Jesus to the high priest in his Jewish trial in
the synoptic tradition (Mark 14:62//Matt. 26:4//Luke 22:70). Jesus, who is on trial,
is rejected on earth by mortals but proclaims a vindication in heaven by God.
John 6:62, however, bears the stamp of the Johannine perspective, since it
specifically acclaims Jesus’ past eternity, a heavenly state that he had with
God before the creation of the world (see 17:5, 24) and to which he will
return. In 6:62, moreover, Jesus declares that he will ascend to heaven,
implying that he does this by his own power (13:1-3; 20:17-18), unlike his
being raised and vindicated by God, which is the perspective o the Synoptic
Gospels at this point. Whereas the acclamation of Jesus’ previous eternal glory
is made to the disciples in John 17 in a context of prayer (albeit on the eve
of catastrophe, in the context of a farewell address), here it functions as a riposte
to those who reject him. Whereas 13:1-3 describes Jesus’ return to the Father
in the context in which his love for the disciples is noted (13:1) as well as
God’s donation of “all things into his hands” (13:3), the return of Jesus in
6:62 is phrased as a hostile rhetorical argument dismissing criticism of his
teaching. The context of 6:62, then, is fierce conflict in which Jesus’ remark
functions as a riposte dismissing criticism of him, a function intended to divide
permanently Jesus as his audience.
The Gospel,
moreover, contextualizes 6:62 by lining it with 6:63, wherein Jesus states: “The
spirit alone gives life; the flesh is of no avail.” By this juxtaposition, the
author intends 6:63 to comment on 6:62, the high christological remark about
Jesus true home, and vice versa. Because it is an unqualified value statement,
6:63 states that spirit is juxtaposed to flesh, just as Jesus is at home in
heaven, not on earth. Spirit, moreover, is irreconcilably juxtaposed to flesh,
as heaven to earth, replicating the pattern noted in 8:23. But 6:63 functions
as a value remark. It places value only on the side of spirit (or heaven) and
completely devalues flesh (or earth). Whatever might have been signaled in 1:14
about a possible marriage of heaven and earth comes into serious question. The
context of the high christological remark in 6:62, then, is conflict and rejection;
the particular was that 6:62-63 expresses that confession understands it as a
statement that heaven/spirit have nothing to do with earth/flesh. And the confession
functions to separate Jesus from others and conversely to proclaim his
superiority to them, eve as Jesus true home is superior to this world below. (Jerome
H. Neyrey, “Equal to God, But Not of This world,” in An ideology of Revolt:
John’s Christology in Social-Science Perspective [Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1988; repr., Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2007], 108-9)
Spirit vs.
Flesh
Jesus not only
indicates that Nicodemus is an outsider, but why he is such: “That which is
born of flesh is flesh, that which is born of spirit is spirit” (3:6).
Nicodemus obviously is labeled “flesh,” for he understands Jesus’ remarks about
“being born anothen” in fleshly terms as a second physical birth: “Can
he enter into his mother’s womb and be born deuteron [i.e., a second time]?”
because he is flesh, not spirit, he can neither understand spiritual things nor
recognize heavenly figures: “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe,
how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? “(3:12). The Johannine
world, then, is dichotomized into contrasting realms—spirit vs. flesh and
heaven vs. earth—with superiority clearly on the side of spirit and heaven. Yet
this mode of discourse functions in terms of a replacement argument by the Johannine
group that Jesus offers God’s people true Passover bread, the authentic
place to worship, the correct entrance rites, and so forth. The
conflict is between synagogue and church. Material rites are still valued and
required, the issue being the competing claims of the Johannine group to have
the only valid rites, cultic objects, feasts, and so forth.
In another
vein, Jesus repeatedly criticizes his critics for “judging according to the
flesh” (8:15; 7:24), because they dismiss him for a material violation of the
Sabbath, failing to see things in a correct way. Douglas’s model suggests that
in competitive, conflictive situations (when grid is low or falling), the
challengers or reformers will tend to see a distinction between outer and
inner, even sensing that the outer, which may look correct, is really evil in
disguise, that is, hypocrisy or even witchcraft. In this context, the
challenger or reformer claims that truth is a matter of the heart or the
interior, and so attacks what is external, outer, or formal (see Matt. 23:25-28).
The urging, then, “not to judge according to the flesh” should be seen as an
appropriate statement of strong group/low grid, in which the rules and norms of
the day are being challenged by an appeal to what is below the surface or in
the heart. Flesh is in need of reform, while truth can be found in the heart or
interior. While 8:15 and 7:24 function as challenges for reform, they are not
statements of revolt against the whole system. Rather, they would use that is
true (what is inner, below the surface) as principles of reform.
Summing up
this inquiry into spirit/flesh dichotomy, we note that the argument abut true
cultic rituals belongs in the period of Johannine history described in the last
chapter as “replacement” (strong group/rising grid). A spirit/flesh dichotomy
functions there as a principle of reform, not revolt, as better rituals replace
obsolete or false ones. Likewise the criticism of “judging according to the
flesh” stems from an early period when Christians objected to their claims
being judged by material standards such as strict Sabbath observance, and so it
functions as well as a reforming principle.
How different,
however, are 6:62-63 and 8;23-24. They are directed not to the synagogue, but
to Christians of inadequate faith. They describe Jesus basically as a heavenly
figure who is not of this world, which confession itself now serves as the new criterion
for membership and adequate faith. And they function not as reforming
principles but as firm boundary lines distinguishing true followers from all
else, boundary lines which devalue even things held sacred earlier, but now
seen as hopelessly inadequate. John 6:62-63 and 8;23-24 revolt against all
former criteria: all things earthly, fleshly, and material are of no avail,
even the group’s reformed rites. These two texts, then, express a weak
group/low grid perspective where dichotomous remarks signal a revolt against
previously held values and positions. (Neyrey, “Christology and Cosmology:
Spirit Versus Flesh,” ibid., 158-59)
